Quick Fact: Carlson falsely claimed Republicans were "sidelined" in health care reform debate
On the February 9 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson advanced the false claim that Republicans had been "sidelined through the whole" health care "discussion." In fact, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee and Senate Finance Committee bills contained nearly 200 Republican amendments.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
From the February 9 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
CARLSON: I understand that the Republicans want to start over and start from scratch because they were basically sidelined through the whole discussion initially, but it is going to be a huge mistake if the Republicans don't show up at this thing. It's going to prove the president's point that they've basically been the party of no.
FACT: Senate bills included numerous GOP amendments, reflected bipartisan meetings
Senate bills had numerous GOP amendments and reflected bipartisan meetings. According to a HELP Committee document about bipartisan aspects of the health reform bill the committee passed July 15, the final bill included "161 Republican amendments," including "several amendments from Senators [Mike] Enzi [R-WY], [Tom] Coburn [R-OK], [Pat] Roberts [R-KS] and others [that] make certain that nothing in the legislation will allow for rationing of care," and reflected the efforts of "six bipartisan working groups" that "met a combined 72 times" in 2009 as well as "30 bipartisan hearings on health care reform" since 2007, half of which were held in 2009. And according to the Senate Finance Committee's document detailing the amendments to the Chairman's Mark considered, at least 13 amendments sponsored by one or more Republican senators were included in the bill.
I don't recall the democrats derailing major policy initiatives after the Bushes and Reagan won the presidency, yet here we have these horribly mistreated republicans doing just that. Add to this the fact that the democrates did envolve them and you can see, playing the victim is more important than actually getting things done.
The Republicans filed 788 amendments, 161 of which made it into the bill.
They had their chance to take part and instead they took the opportunity to bog it down with a boat load of amendments. True to Republican form, it is their agenda to show how dysfunctional and ineffective government can be. The important part for them is to get elected so they have the chance to prove it.
Crazily enough, these Republicans are not, in fact, in danger of losing their seats; only the Democrats are.
It IS the will of the people they represent because the majority of America does not like the current bill. Yes, they want health care reform, but not what they are being offered and only AFTER jobs and the economy. Dozens have polls have shown this, and not just conservative ones.
Why involve them when they won't vote for whatever they're involved in anyway?
Because no matter how they vote, they are still our elected officials and still should have a say in how this government runs. You might not like the message but the procedure should trump that. You never know. If you have a dynamic leader, he could change minds. It's not unheard of.
I wont pretend to know what exactly Carlson was referring to, but I think she may have referenced the closed door sessions the democrats held that shut Republicans out for six months. Just a guess.
Oh, and the President isn't their LEADER. The President is the head of the Executive Branch . . . he is NOT the LEADER of Congress. He proposes, Congress legislates and funds. He can ASK for things, but under our system of government, he cannot FORCE Congress to do anything. Please note that the Framers created the legislative branch FIRST. Originally, the President was to have been simply a magistrate. Three co-equal branches, each with oversight over the other, but NONE with control over the other.
I didn't say that. You assume an awful lot.
"Our plan is to weaken the bill as much as possible.. and then kill it."
Bottom line is that if government fails to solve problems, they can say its because we the people can't rely on government rather than that we the people suffered from a disfunctional process that the conservatives created.
It's not about what Rep's have or have not been allowed to do. Even when the door is wide open, and they have an engraved invitation, they refuse to enter... simply out of spite, it seems.
Either they want to figure out how to work within the circumstance they have now, or they don't. Looks to me that they don't - even when in private they may, or even when in public (the press) they say they do... they obviously do not.
It's much more fun for them to continue to stand up and lie about the realities, in pursuit of the pity votes... regardless of fact-finding, proof to the contrary... whatever will portray them as poor hapless victims seems to be the modus operandi. Let's all pat the poor republicans on their sad little heads...
And, honestly - if they are so weak and ineffective that they can't even get someone to listen, to take them seriously, to have a conversation... then what on earth are they doing in Congress in the first place? Why is it more appealing to present themselves as ineffective and inept - why would they rather stomp their collective foot and proclaim "no one likes us!". Nobody likes a whiner - do they?
Only ideologues would argue that the Republicans were included in the process. Included in that they got to vote "Nay," maybe.
<scratches head over this one>
It's normal and fair, so Neocons don't like it.
You sure about that sparky? I guess 161 Republican amendments is getting shut down and told to shut up.
First you post this...
Seemingly in reply to this comment...
Then about ten minutes later you post this...
Why can't con posters that make it to this site understand, we can see all of the things you post.
Enlightened Monkey? Well I can't see that.
Like I said, they wanted to continue debate and offer more amendments and they were not allowed to. The volume of amendments in the bill is irrelevant, they wanted to keep debating and were told to "shut up."
You guys give them hell for being the party of "no" then give them hell for offering too many amendments. What you really want is for everyone to just go along with you and not argue.
All the meetings and amendments were only for show. With about 2000 pages of confusing legal babble, Republican input had little or no meaning in the big picture.
And then if only ONE progressive Republican vote was tallied, the bill was touted by Obama as bipartisan. This reasoning was appalling and complete nonsense.
BTW, Hannity and Rush saying it doesn't make it so. Every time I hear Hannity say that I scream into my radio.
It was the 2000 pages of legal gibberish creating new government agencies making up new policy on the fly that shadowed its true intent.
The Democrats knew that when the 2000 page bill came up for final passage that they would be required to spend a few days reading it on the Senate floor. That would have been the breaking point where the circus spectacle would have fallen apart.
Get the legislation down to about twenty pages without delegating authority to another government czar and then we can look at its true intent.
And what "Dem talking point"? Following the Democratic party line is something I am not interested in. Would you mind explaining how the government would totally take-over health care with this bill? I would love to know.
That is exactly what is being done in the 2000 page health legislation.
By saying the government wants to take over the health care industry, you are essentially saying that they would create a single-payer insurance program while simultaneously nationalizing the hospitals. That's what a "take over" means.
I've been meaning to write this post for some time. The words "socialized medicine" and "single-payer health care" get thrown around with such gleeful abandon that they've both become a bit unmoored from their actual meanings. In the American health-care debate, they tend to refer to "whatever the Democrats are proposing." But that's not what they mean.
Socialized medicine is a system in which the government owns the means of providing medicine. Britain is an example of socialized system, as, in America, is the Veterans Health Administration. In a socialized system, the government employs the doctors and nurses, builds and owns the hospitals, and bargains for and purchases the technology. I have literally never heard a proposal for converting America to a socialized system of medicine. And I know a lot of liberals.
Single-payer health care is not socialized medicine. It's a system in which one institution purchases all, or in reality, most, of the care. But the payer does not own the doctors or the hospitals or the nurses or the MRI scanners. Medicare is an example of a mostly single-payer system, as is France. Both of these systems have private insurers to choose from, but the government is the dominant purchaser. (As an aside here, unlike in socialized medicine, "single-payer health care" has nothing in particular to do with the government. The state might be the single payer. But if Aetna managed to wrest 100 percent of the health insurance market, then it would be the single payer. The term refers to market share, not federal control.)
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/06/09/socialized-medicine-vs-single-payer-vs-what-we-have-now.aspx
Did the Republicans complain when the PATRIOT (sic) ACT was over 300 pages and took away your habeas corpus rights?
Did the Republicans complain the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 (aka the Bush Tax Cuts) is 114 pages but added about $1.25 TRILLION to the Federal debt over 10 years?
Did the Republicans complain the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 was 416 pages - and is adding about $40 billion a year to the Federal debt?
Right there are $165 BILLION a year, $1.65 TRILLION over 10 years in Federal deficits, in just 830 pages.
By comparison the current HR 3962 is a bargain.
No one has yet admitted that the Health costs in this country are so high, because a $5,000 funeral is DELAYED by a $250,000 medical procedure.
Please comment on that statement. I have posted and emailed it many times, without comment.
Once it is determined that Health Care should be available to everyone, just like the Postal Service, the way to reduce Health Care costs is simple.
Just eliminate all insurance companies, their buildings, computers, and employees, and get rid of all Government health care employees. That would also eliminate the need for people in each and every doctor’s office and hospital, who spend their day filling out insurance forms.
I understand that there is a list of the procedures and the cost of each, for various parts of the Country.
Collect from each and every income tax filer, (personal, business, corporation) their portion of the actual medical costs. No insurance, no advertisements, just a portion of their income.
Give every qualified doctor, hospital, and pharmacy a blank checkbook so they can write a check each evening for all the services they had provided that day. Have a bunch of auditors keep track of what is done.
If there is even one penny of fraud in that check, the signer goes to prison for a minute, and hour, and up to life,no lawyers allowed.
Just remember the post Office Service. Anyone can mail a letter, and anyone can receive a letter.
With Govt Health Care, everyone can get sick, and anyone can see a doctor, just go to the closest post office, I mean medical facility.
In 80 years I have never had a problem with the PO for thousands of letters and packages, NOT ONE.
Just remember the lady who wrote her grocery list, and figured it would cost $20. But she only took $10 with her. That is what the Gov't has done with Soc Sec. They know what it will cost, but have not collected enough money. Don't do that with health care.